Bush No Brainiac

W.'s knowledge of foreign policy more telling than his grades

Last month during the debate in New Hampshire between Democratic presidential frontrunners Al Gore '69 and Bill Bradley, an audience member posed the question: What qualities do you consider most important in a leader? The answers Gore and Bradley gave were trite and forgettable, but the significance of the query hung heavy in the air. In a post-Watergate, post-Lewinsky world, what universal attributes, if any, can we expect to be intrinsic to the leader of our country? Honesty? Morality? Intelligence?

Political analysts point out the latter attribute has actually decreased in importance during this year's presidential campaign. Candidates have made a concerted effort to appeal to the anti-intellectual preferences of certain voters. John McCain, a Republican presidential candidate, frequently jokes about his fifth-from-the-bottom finish at the U.S. Naval Academy. Gore and Bradley have similarly made the effort to downplay their respective Harvard and Princeton educations in recent months.

As for Republican presidential front-runner George W. Bush, he seems to have no problems convincing the masses (however unintentionally) that he's no member of the intelligentsia. The New Yorker recently printed a transcript from Bush's years at Yale which revealed him to be a rather mediocre student. He had highs of 88 in philosophy and anthropology, a low of 69 in astronomy, with a GPA somewhere in the mid-C range.

Bush's supporters brushed off the report, arguing that his academic track record is hardly a good indication of presidential potential. What we should focus on is not how well Bush did in random assortment of classes some 30 years ago, but how he performs in the role of statesman.

We can agree that it would be ridiculous to assume a direct correlation between Bush's grades and his intelligence. If there was, Bush's 73 in political science would mean that he should be able to answer about three-quarters of the questions posed to him in that topic area.

However, during a recent radio interview with Boston political correspondent Andy Hiller, Bush was asked to name the leaders of four major countries--India, Pakistan, Taiwan and Chechnya--and could only come up with the last name of the Taiwanese president. Ignoring the fact that Bush didn't know Lee Teng-hui's full name, we can see that he scored a disappointing 25 percent on that little pop quiz. His academic record in this particular case would actually overestimate the extent of his knowledge, a revelation that can be buttressed by his recent confusion of Slovenia and Slovakia and inability to distinguish a Greek from a Grecian. (Bradley, on the other hand, was smart enough to refuse to play the game when queried by Hiller.)

Regardless of whether the current trend is to be "on the level of the people" in terms of brainpower, such a blatant lack of understanding about key international players is disturbing. Yes, it is unfair to expect a candidate to know specific details about each and every issue that could possibly be introduced. At the same time, the four countries mentioned have been in the news frequently; it's not as if Bush was asked to name the five major exports of Sri Lanka.

The recent attention to Bush's knowledge gaps may end up being mere blips on the radar screen of his campaign, given his popularity level and fundraising skills. But if Bush, or any other candidate, can't prepare himself well enough to be effective in a public forum about today's most salient issues, it's hard to believe he could be effective as a president. The presence or absence of smarts may not be seen as important, but the ability to communicate knowledgeably and on a well-informed basis is absolutely essential.